Anyone who took high school debate knows the difference between "debunked" and a rebuttal. Debunked implies that a claim was completely reversed.
Simply making a counter claim does not disprove an argument.
An argument is composed of a claim, data, and analysis.
If you look at what BBC man says, he simply quotes a claim by another organization which he implies prima facie carries the full weight of a fully constructed argument. He does not provide any data or any analysis either from these organizations or on his own argument.
That said, Alex did a poor job of debating. His principle arguments where rhetorical, he doesn't care about the UK's opinion. Then he introduces the Dominion attack line without articulating it.
This was a piss poor showing.
He needed to make the simple argument that Trump was up with a substantial lead in swing states going into 10:00pm EST, with a win in Ohio and Florida which in nearly all prior elections means a victory. Then all of a sudden counting stopped. Not only that they called Arizona for Biden at the close of the polls while delaying the results for places like Texas which had 80% reporting. Then overnight, all the massive leads practically disappear due to mail in ballots and then Republican poll watchers are physically prevented from observing the count of mail in ballots.
You have the narrative right there and then the debate is framed properly. Alex is on our side but he seems to be a frat bro which is why the BBC probably picked him as the "Trump Team" representative.
I used to think that most reasonable people are looking for credentialed information and therefore it makes sense that be default they are going to defer to what appears to be a subject matter expert.
However it has become incredibly clear, given the wholesale rejection and censorship of credentialed critics of the worldwide response to the Wu Flu that most people are simply looking for data to feed their confirmation bias.
Some info looks valid but is fabricated for an agenda. Its hard to know if someone is a shill or not without deeper research into who/what/why the source of any given information.
Its so much easier to assume everything you hear is false until proven otherwise.
Anyone who took high school debate knows the difference between "debunked" and a rebuttal. Debunked implies that a claim was completely reversed.
Simply making a counter claim does not disprove an argument.
An argument is composed of a claim, data, and analysis.
If you look at what BBC man says, he simply quotes a claim by another organization which he implies prima facie carries the full weight of a fully constructed argument. He does not provide any data or any analysis either from these organizations or on his own argument.
That said, Alex did a poor job of debating. His principle arguments where rhetorical, he doesn't care about the UK's opinion. Then he introduces the Dominion attack line without articulating it.
This was a piss poor showing.
He needed to make the simple argument that Trump was up with a substantial lead in swing states going into 10:00pm EST, with a win in Ohio and Florida which in nearly all prior elections means a victory. Then all of a sudden counting stopped. Not only that they called Arizona for Biden at the close of the polls while delaying the results for places like Texas which had 80% reporting. Then overnight, all the massive leads practically disappear due to mail in ballots and then Republican poll watchers are physically prevented from observing the count of mail in ballots.
You have the narrative right there and then the debate is framed properly. Alex is on our side but he seems to be a frat bro which is why the BBC probably picked him as the "Trump Team" representative.
Valid post
The logical fallacy is called Appeal to Authority.
"Believe the science!"
"Smarter people than me think this therefore I must be wrong."
Completely illogical, but very effective as propaganda.
I used to think that most reasonable people are looking for credentialed information and therefore it makes sense that be default they are going to defer to what appears to be a subject matter expert.
However it has become incredibly clear, given the wholesale rejection and censorship of credentialed critics of the worldwide response to the Wu Flu that most people are simply looking for data to feed their confirmation bias.
Some info looks valid but is fabricated for an agenda. Its hard to know if someone is a shill or not without deeper research into who/what/why the source of any given information.
Its so much easier to assume everything you hear is false until proven otherwise.